Today's Seattle Times reports on Mayor Greg Nickels field trip to inspect Seattle's water supply
It's hard to tell by looking that the 90,000-acre watershed could be threatened by climate change.Variations? Droughts? Floods? Both droughts and floods? Whatever. Undoubtedly some climate scientist somewhere will use it as proof of global warming. More to the point: how much Middle-Eastern fossil fuel did Mayor Nickels burn in order to stage the photo-op of himself in the helicopter looking concerned about global warming? Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 29, 2007 03:28 PM | Email ThisTwo years ago, the snowpack was just 25 percent of its normal level. Last year, it was 30 percent above average in some places. This season, the wild and cold weather as winter arrived was later neutralized by warm rain that left the snowpack 10 percent above normal as of this week.
To some climate scientists, those big variations are signs of trouble.
1) Accept as fact that the earth's temperature is increasing and also agree that the internal combustion engine may be the primary culprit.
2) Present research that shows that automobile engines operating at idle produce a significantly higher ratio of pollutants per unit of fuel consumed than do the same engines operating within their peak efficiency band.
3) DEMAND that the City you live in synchronize each and every traffic light on each and every corridor to provide for optimized progression.
Should Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ever be proven as fact, this will be the most efficient way address the situation. What is more it will provide a benefit of allowing one to get from point A to point B considerably faster than at present.
Now, before the screwball from Floriduh logs on, let me state that Global Warming™ is here. It has always been here except for the times when we had the global cooling scares in the 70's (and of course the cooling periods we had before the press got excited about it).
Global Warming™ has become a scam worth billions of research dollars a year to thousands of academics and scientist of all stripes, from mere millions a decade or so ago. I'd keep pumping the Global Warming™ fear too if my job and research dollars were linked to that kind of big money. Way bigger money than "Big Oil" has put into being sensible about it.
Mayor Pudge and his allies and minions only see another avenue of control, through Global Warming™, of your life and mine. Flush with tax dollars and no compunction to tax you less and no fear to tax you more, no expense will be spared to fight the evils of Global Warming™. Get ready. When they control the horizontal and the vertical you'll pay. A look at any gas pump is proof of that.
Every graph I have seen of temperature variations from 10000 years forward shows the warming we have at this time to be much closer to average than it is to the extremes (or even the medieval warm period). So all I want is one (1) answer from somebody that knows. I don't care what your expertise, I just need the answer:
From 10000 years forward, which climate is the best one? The one we have now or the one that was 500 years ago? Or insert your own year. As in: The one we have now or the one that was XXXX years ago? Once that is e established, I will have some more questions for you about Global Warming™.
Posted by: Stewart Mill on March 29, 2007 04:11 PMI also notice the educational system is indoctrinating the children to their non scientific truth of Global Warming. The Liberal press, the public school system, colleges and state government have concluded this swindle of our economic power using a power point presentation by the popular vote getter of the 2000 presidential election Al Gore, a man who got a D+ in science.
This is communist propaganda! What has happened to America? United we stand divided we fall!
It took a lot of work by our ancestors to warm western Washngton to the point where we can live here comfortably. Let's not mess it up now by attempting to turn down the thermostat!
More at : "Where Was Al Gore When Greenland Got Its Name?" at http://www.Canticle4Leibowitz.com
Posted by: Bob Leibowitz on March 29, 2007 04:37 PMIt took a lot of work by our ancestors to warm western Washngton to the point where we can live here comfortably. Let's not mess it up now by attempting to turn down the thermostat!
More at : "Where Was Al Gore When Greenland Got Its Name?" at http://www.Canticle4Leibowitz.com
Posted by: Bob Leibowitz on March 29, 2007 04:37 PMDoes he have some expertise as to what "normal" or "abnormal" snowfall is? WTF is flying around in a helicopter supposed to prove anyway? Somebody go take a picture of the pretty snow and show it to his highness - that maybe and some graphs printed on recycled paper - should be all he needs to do his job (whatever that is).
Lets put together a pledge, similar to the one that Al Gore refuses to sign, that states that he won't go on "unneccessary" trips, and limit his own personal production of CO2 as an "example". Lets give it to Nichols, and start a watchdog group to make sure he lives up to it. Lets see if mayor fat windbag can survive on the type of lifestyle he wants all the rest of us to adopt. As a matter of fact, I'm suprised the greenie leftists aren't doing this yet (this makes it pretty obvious they aren't really serious).
When I start to see the "party officials" trimming down their "damage to the planet", then I'll start to get worried - until then, its just more Eliteism... SSDD
Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 29, 2007 04:38 PMThis is what happens when people allow whacked out libtards a platform to explain the real world by using PSEUDOSCIENCE...
Posted by: juandos on March 29, 2007 05:00 PMThe Seattle water supply would be in even better shape if Mayor McCheese would stop letting his buddy Paul Allen siphon it off to water his massive private golf course. The next time these liberal hypocrites start yapping about global "warming", there should be manadatory disclosures on how much energy these goofballs personally use. This would include all modes of transportation, the number of houses, how many kilowatt hours consumed by residences and workspace, etc.
Posted by: Burdabee on March 29, 2007 05:10 PMto Save Antarctic Ice Sheet
Several hollywood actors and actresses have paid to have ice flown to Antarctica to help rebuild the rapidly disintegrating ice cap.
"We couldn't just sit by and watch this tragedy unfold without doing something, you know?" exclaimed one well-known actress who asked that ecoEnquirer not use her name. "I was like, 'we have to help fix it!', and my friends were, like, 'well let's do something!".
http://www.ecoenquirer.com/operation-icelift.htm
Posted by: Friends of David Mathews on March 29, 2007 05:32 PMThe global warming stuff falls into the latter category in that there is just enough scientific data to make what is essentially a weak case.
Anyone who has followed the environmental movement over the past 40 years knows that science has never been one of their strong points. Its the same here.
Only by studiously avoiding contrary science have they been able push their anti-progress agenda. All contrary evidence is suppressed and those scientists reporting it ostracised or worse.
When all the data is examined, honest scientists have told us that we likely have warming but that there are no proven mechanisms for what might be causing it.
The anthropomorphic global warming theory relies entirely on a simplistic understanding of how the earth's atmosphere circulates air, an oversimplified mathmatical model based on the simplistic atmospheric concept, and on the assumption that a very small increase in a natural substance (CO2) can control a planetary scale greenhouse effect.
All in all its not a bad theory, except that actual measurements of modern temperatures and estimates of older ones don't fit the theory very well.
If the issue were truly one where science, rather than politics, had much impact on proposed policies, our governments would be funding studies to evaluate the theory rather than ones that extrapolate future conditions while assuming the theory correct. After nearly 20 years since the the theory was proposed this has not begun.
It is clear to me as a scientist with over 10 years of post-secondary academic training and 30 years of practical science experience that our politicians are putting the cart way ahead of the horse on this.
Does what I am saying mean that CO2 has no effect on climate? Hell, I don't know!
And guess what - neither do the self-professed experts on Global Warming! They base their support of new CO2 policies on something called the "Precautionary Principle", which was the first proposed at the 1993 Rio Conference and which basically says that protecting the environment comes first, even when we are not sure our theories are right.
Some say the debate is over. I hope not, but after 20 years of seeing colleagues marginalized for being what scientists are supposed to be - skeptical - I have great doubts we will see real science triumph on this issue.
The scaly monster. The salmon.
Seattle has plenty of year round water in our reserviors for human needs. Elecric power, drinking, bathing, washing and watering.
But in September, the time our summer dry climate has lowered our reserviors, the salmon are heading upstream and the reservior drawdowns begin and they need FLOW, baby.
So we empty the reserviors for the most important citizen of the Puget Sound region, the Salmon.
I'm pretty sure that City Light and the Mayor would trade two or three Bart Cannon's for one salmon.
A couple of years ago our salmon programs which include buying upland riversides in Skagit and Snohomish County cost about 30 million dollars a year.
The programs were at least in part to bring salmon back to the largest CITY in the Northwest. Seattle. All the creeks within the city limits drew less than 30 salmon up our creeks. I'm not TOO good at math, but that's about a million dollars per salmon.
I used to love the little beasts. Not anymore.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on March 29, 2007 06:20 PMIn investigating this question, Siegenthaler et al. say they obtained the best correlation between CO2 and temperature "for a lag of CO2 of 1900 years." Specifically, over the course of glacial terminations V to VII, they indicate that "the highest correlation of CO2 and deuterium, with use of a 20-ky window for each termination, yields a lag of CO2 to deuterium of 800, 1600, and 2800 years, respectively." In addition, they note that "this value is consistent with estimates based on data from the past four glacial cycles," citing in this regard the work of Fischer et al. (1999), Monnin et al. (2001) and Caillon et al. (2003). Clearly, therefore, it is temperature that is the robust leader in this tightly-coupled relationship, while CO2 is but the humble follower, providing only a fraction (which could well be miniscule) - of the total glacial-to-interglacial temperature change.
This observation does little to inspire confidence in climate-alarmist claims that the CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic temperature increases,...
...that it is "a very strong indication of the important role of CO2 in climate regulation," we say it is "a very strong indication of the important role of climate in CO2 regulation." Why? Because like Mary's little lamb, and as evidenced by 650,000 years of real-world data, wherever temperature went over this period, CO2 was sure to follow, which by definition is "a very strong indication of the important role of climate in CO2 regulation" and not the opposite.
In case you can't read science Witz, what it means is that CO2 goes up AFTER temperature. That a rise in CO2 DOES NOT cause the temperature to rise. That in fact CO2 regulates the temperature.
Therefore mans output of CO2 CAN NOT cause global warming.
Finally Witless I don't recall anyone deny that global warming is occurring. The evidence as cited above from the Vostok Ice Core is that warming is cyclical and independent of man.
Posted by: JCM on March 29, 2007 07:20 PMGreat article - and a very intersting subplot to it as well.
What do you suppose is happening when the author (Thomas Stocker) says to the BBC that this data, which clearly indicates the opposite, shows that CO2 follows temperature?
I see somone worried about his funding!
> Finally Witless I don't recall anyone deny that global warming is occurring.
Excellent. Here is a point of agreement between myself and the flat-earth conservatives here at SoundPolitics.
> The evidence as cited above from the Vostok Ice Core is that warming is cyclical and independent of man.
Yeah ... poor little innocent Homo sapiens aren't responsible for anything. Humans can keep on polluting the Earth because none of these activities have any sort of impact upon the Earth whatsoever.
Don't you also know that:
Smoking doesn't cause cancer!
and ...
Fast food isn't responsible for America's supernatural obesity!
1. There was ANOTHER helicopter there wasting fuel,
2. They dropped off a photographer on the top of some ridge to take this picture (notice how staged Nickels looks...), or
3. This is a nicely Photoshop-ed image that is complete BS.
Ok, so the whole thing is a BS photo op...but I thought I'd state the obvious. Greg must have been pissed to see all that snow. Better luck next year??
Posted by: Chris on March 29, 2007 07:54 PMDid you look at anything that JCM posted, or did you stop after you read what you wanted...
Posted by: Chris on March 29, 2007 07:58 PMWell, as usual the private sector has stepped into the void left by the government.
I refer you to Lloyd's of London's report, Climate Change: Adapt or Bust.
Lloyd's doesn't care about ideology. Lloyd's only cares about covering their bets as a reinsurer. They and other reinsurance companies like Swiss Re are investing hundreds of billions of dollars now, because they think if they don't, they could stand to lose even more.
Of course, to think that reinsurance companies can make profitable decisions about risk would mean believing in free markets... Something I note most Pharisees in this thread seem not to.
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr on March 29, 2007 07:58 PMActually, Seattle should stop ALL growth, no more building. You will need the all the WATER when the Global Warming HITS.......
Kinda like that Viaduct that "should've" crumbled 3 years ago.
Stefan, if you get 6 inches of rain in an hour, that's a flood. If you don't get any more for the rest of the year, that a drought. If both conditions happen in the same year, that's a drought and a flood.
If you got out more often into the world God created for us, you wouldn't need these things explained. (Let alone the language problem, but hey.)
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr on March 29, 2007 08:06 PM> I constantly think about little boys and their first erections and how their nipples stand out. Global warming will ruin all that and my fantasies will die with them. Red Room, Red Room.
Pedophilia and conservatism ... what a revealing mix!
Needless to say, SoundPolitics cannot engage in any sort of intellectual discussion of global warming or any other scientific subject for that matter.
Stephen Hawking was right when speaking about Republicans and science, wasn't he?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 29, 2007 08:21 PMFind some other place to blog, if you don't like our Intellectual Discussions here on SP.
Don't lower yourself, pleaseeeee.....
Poof, shazaaaam, get outta here......
Posted by: Chris2 on March 29, 2007 08:26 PMEvery graph I have seen of temperature variations from 10000 years forward shows the warming we have at this time to be much closer to average than it is to the extremes (or even the medieval warm period). So all I want is one (1) answer from somebody that knows. I don't care what your expertise, I just need the answer:
From 10000 years forward, which climate is the best one? The one we have now or the one that was 500 years ago? Or insert your own year. As in: The one we have now or the one that was XXXX years ago? Once that is e established, I will have some more questions for you about Global Warming™.
Posted by: Stewart Mill on March 29, 2007 08:30 PMIntellect and SoundPolitics have about as much in common as Darwin and Creationism.
Have you forgotten what Stephen Hawking said?
"The swing against science occurred during the Bush years mainly in America rather than in the rest of the world."
SoundPolitics' war against science continues.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 29, 2007 08:30 PMBoth parents have to work to pay the tax burden and the tax on property ownership makes it so lots with houses on them these days are to small to play a good game of whiffle ball in the back yard. Thus making the entertainment room the only place large enough for friends to gather and play that stupid Xbox rather than something that requires a bit of running around. The only excercise kids get by play is proven by the well developed thumb and trigger finger. Video triggers, libs, video triggers. Posted by: PC on March 29, 2007 08:32 PM
Finally, an intellectual-sounding question (much better than the conservative foray into pedophilia in #28):
> From 10000 years forward, which climate is the best one? The one we have now or the one that was 500 years ago?
The climate of five hundred years ago undoubtedly was better than today's climate.
Why?
Because humans had not yet filled the atmosphere with pollution nor destroy the biosphere of the Earth five centuries ago.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 29, 2007 08:39 PMLevel of air pollution is not Climate! And the evidence to show that air pollution affects climate is sorely lacking.
Posted by: JCM on March 29, 2007 08:46 PM> It has been shown that not only the Earth, but all the planets in the solar system have been warming.
This is an incredibly uninformed comment, TrueSoldier.
> So David, does this mean that there must be aliens driving SUV's on other planets ...
So far as I can tell, there are no obese Americans on other planets or anywhere else in the Universe.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 29, 2007 08:46 PMhttp://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTQzYWY1MGM5NTkyZTM2YWVlMDMzMDlhMzQwNThhNDU=
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 29, 2007 08:48 PM> Level of air pollution is not Climate!
Do you think that pollution is a good or bad thing, JCM?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 29, 2007 08:49 PMhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 29, 2007 08:53 PMFred Thompson is the author of that comment and, yes, it is incredibly uninformed and an ideal example of the Republican war against science which continues.
The Republicans are allowed to get away with such ignorant propaganda because their audience ranks among the most ignorant & disinterested populations in the world. Conservatives are materialistic, consumeristic, and anti-scientific.
These conservative traits are displayed abundantly here at SoundPolitics.
The Republican war against science is occurring right here at SoundPolitics. Fortunately, the Republicans can't win any of their wars anymore.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 29, 2007 08:55 PMMars is a really bad argument against Global Warming. There are several really substantial differences between Mars and the Earth.
Those claiming Global Warming on Mars in order to deny Global Warming on the Earth manifest the sort of anti-scientific mindset which has afflicted the conservatives for generations.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 29, 2007 08:58 PMhttp://www.nypost.com/seven/02262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/not_that_simple_opedcolumnists_roy_w__spencer.htm?page=0
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 29, 2007 09:06 PMNew Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change
Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds
I am beginning to see a trend. With a common denominator.
Posted by: JCM on March 29, 2007 09:24 PMOh you mean like no SUV's, No industrialized countries, no people for that matter. Yeah that does make it hard to explain doesn't it.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 29, 2007 09:30 PMYou can stick with the 1% of the scientists that have their research funded by energy companies and make more money if they IGNORE REALITY.
You can also line up with the folks that still think the world is flat, and the sun rotates around the earth......
But what the heck. According to National Geographic only 500 species go extinct a day. We didn't need all them critters anyway right?
Posted by: Facts on March 29, 2007 09:50 PMToday's Weather > Climate Change > Impending Catastrophe > Fear of Doom > Puesdo-scientific Study Funding > Political Posturing > Camera Hogging > News at Eleven > Tomorrow's Weather Forecast . . .
(Usage of the name 'Jove', otherwise known as 'Jupiter' or 'Zeus', in the above is not intended in vain, nor as a curse, and it is not, therefore, punishable as an insult against any practioners of any Roman Mythology faith.)
Posted by: starboardhelm on March 29, 2007 09:57 PMPosted by: ljm on March 29, 2007 10:26 PM
Where is the 99%? Perhaps in the echo chamber that you call your personal universe?
There is no consensus - only fear of losing one's livlihood for speaking the truth.
You are free to believe what you wish and to enjoy the political hegemony of those who push the flawed science of the anthropomorphic global warming theory with religeous fervor.
But a time will come when the facts can no longer be ignored. Then the great unwashed masses will turn against science as much as the global warming pseudo religion.
The greatest loser in the process will be the environment you think you are protecting. Who will believe the boy who cried wolf one time too many?
Hey, Davey gravy: Where were you thirty years ago when the liberal freakazoids were screaming about global cooling?
Liberal Koolaid-drinking dork. Write when you get real statisitics.
Posted by: NurseWilliam on March 30, 2007 04:33 AMDid you actually read the articles which you linked?
The third article says this:
> While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.
And I must wonder at the sincerity of conservatives who affirm absolute faith in science when speaking about climate change occurring on Pluto, Jupiter and Mars while engaging in the denial of scientific conclusions about human impacts upon the Earth's climate.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 30, 2007 04:36 AM> There is no consensus - only fear of losing one's livlihood for speaking the truth.
The above sentence is an impressive display of how profoundly anti-scientific conservatives have become as they attempt to defend pollution.
Needless to say, you don't know science nor the manner in which science operates.
You want to know something, I've heard this argument before ... among the scientific creationists. They consider evolution a scientific conspiracy against religion.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 30, 2007 04:41 AM> Where were you thirty years ago when the liberal freakazoids were screaming about global cooling?
There is a distinct difference between the Global Cooling scare of thirty years ago and Global Warming.
What is the difference?
Three decades of science.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 30, 2007 04:47 AMWhat if you were COMPLETELY wrong, DM, and if we eliminated ALL pollution, ALL emissions, ALL man-made waste tomorrow, that the Earth's mean temperature wouldn't start to climb dramatically?
God DOES have a sense of humor... ;)
Posted by: BRC on March 30, 2007 06:56 AMHe won't answer your questions, because he has no idea.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vett on March 30, 2007 07:01 AMThe helicopter the mayor rode on is a 1990 MD (McDonnell Dogulas) 500E
_________________________________________________
Andrew
I fly helos. This model looks more like a 1980's Hughes 500. Which has been used for many years and is a damn good helo compared to Bells Ranger model (death trap)
Not it really matters. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 30, 2007 07:10 AM> What if you were COMPLETELY wrong, DM, and if we eliminated ALL pollution, ALL emissions, ALL man-made waste tomorrow, that the Earth's mean temperature wouldn't start to climb dramatically?
I am in favor of eliminating all pollution, emissions and man-made waste. This is a wonderful goal regardless of any other considerations, including Global Warming.
> man (such impotent little creatures as they are ...
Humans might appear weak & inconsequential to you but this is irrelevant. A single termite doesn't appear like a mortal threat to anything, but a million termites are enough to demolish a home. A single bacterium is invisible but a few billion are sufficient to kill a person, and a few trillion are sufficient to wipe out a hundred million (such as in the black plague).
Humans are weak but there are 6,500,000,000 humans and billions of machines. Homo sapiens are sufficiently powerful to eradicate species, entire ecosystems and radically modify the climate of an entire planet.
6.5 billion humans are also sufficient to drive Homo sapiens to extinction, too. Nature's method of solving the human problem is harsh but effective.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 30, 2007 07:32 AMI agree that the crap DM spews is difficult to read, however; perhaps someone who actually is open to real discussion without insult can see the difference in points of view and come to the logical conclusion that DM and all those like him are wrong. Another convert from the control freak left. Too many from that side are uninformed sheep going where the goats like DM lead. His only answer to JCM, Stewart Mill and others is insults. No counter point. So typical of leftist mentality.
Sometimes you can actually lead one of them out of the dark if they will question what they have taken for granted. Show them reality instead of stereotypes. For all his talk, DM bases all of his comments about those to the right of Socialism on stereotype. He hates us, America, and freedom in general. He will give some B.S. about loving America, but hating polution or some such garbage. Let him talk, feed him a little so he will expose himself for the intolerant, closeminded jerk he actually is.
Posted by: REBEL on March 30, 2007 07:52 AM
Unlike some posters (DMented, Witless and Factless) I am not bothered by contradictory data sets. Having received a Bachelor of Science from a great institution in Seattle, I learned about handling contradictory data. If you really had paid attention in science classes you'd have learned about the that, and how the analysis of data is wide open to human factors. You'd know how separate data from opinion. Something you singularly failed to do with the article.
The DATA from the Vostok Ice Core and others shows that CO2 lags temperature. That drives a huge hole in the Goracles pet project and other GW alarmists.
Simple question, if CO2 lags temperature how can CO2 drive temperature?
I am quite aware of the self contradictory nature of the article, first they use data to show the CO2 then offer an opinion (no data) on the affect of solar output.
Despite what that article says an article from the same source delves into the tight correlation of solar cosmic ray flux and earth's temperature.
What follows is OPINION for those who can't tell the difference.
DMented, Witless and Factless suffer from a self esteem problem, they have no confidence in their place in universe, their metaphysical place. The have never answered three fundamental question all humans must answer: What is your source? What is your purpose? What is your Destiny? As a result without knowing their place when something much larger then they arises they fumble how to place it in context. The idea that they are powerless scares the bejebbers out of them, to gain control of the threat they conclude that man must be able to control the perceived threat. Having concluded that man can control the problem they "feel" better, to support their "feelings" the eschew anything that would damage their "good feelings." The result is DMented's rants, devoid of data, facts, logic, sciences, or reason. To maintain his "good feelings" about himself is willing destroy western civilization, deny opportunity to the third world and relegate billions of people to misery, all so he can "feel" in control of the uncontrollable.
> His only answer to JCM, Stewart Mill and others is insults. No counter point. So typical of leftist mentality.
If these people actually said something worthy of a counterpoint I would consider it a miracle.
Where's the facts? Where is the science? Such are not common currency at SoundPolitics. All that I hear is standard conservative flat-earth creationist thought processes: Scientific conclusions aren't true if they serve to criticize my American lifestyle.
Yeah ... the whole world is out to get obese America. Addicts often suffer because of their addictions. America has trampled on enough toes on its rise to power that it should expect a little punishment on the way down.
If you were wise you would begin making sacrifices now. It will minimize future suffering and weaken "our" enemies. But Americans love their SUVs and obese lifestyle more than they love survival. Americans devote all of their attention to their own self and by doing so have allowed the United States of America to go straight to hell.
Does it make any difference that you are killing your own grandchildren? Probably not. You won't live to see their suffering so you just don't care.
> Simple question, if CO2 lags temperature how can CO2 drive temperature?
Needless to say, JCM, I trust the IPCC more than I ever would trust some creationist Republican protecting the interests of the oil industry & obese American consumerism.
The problem, JCM, is pollution and the destruction of Nature. These behaviors appear unhealthy to me. Do you agree?
> What is your source? What is your purpose? What is your Destiny?
My source, purpose and destiny (according to our good capitalist advertising propaganda) is to own the biggest house, drive the biggest SUV, collect the most frivolous consumer products, have the biggest fattest belly, and to spend my entire life envying all those who have more than I.
> relegate billions of people to misery
Haven't you noticed that there are already billions of people in misery. These are the impoverished people of the world, invisible to the American public, corporations and even our government.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 30, 2007 08:09 AMWe're putting you in charge of fighting obesity. Your first task is to tell Rosie O'Donnell she can't go to buffets and Burger King any more. Posted by: PC on March 30, 2007 08:15 AM
You claim that the earth can only sustain 400 million people - is this correct?
I also understand that you claim that the US is consuming 25% of the world's resources.
Here's my question: Why are you focusing all of your efforts on the US?
If what you've claimed is correct, wouldn't the most effective tactic be to focus on the rest of the world?
If the world can only support 400 million people (as you've claimed), then clearly you must advocate mass-scale genocide to "trim down" the undersireables, right? (Considering that the world's population is much larger than that now) What other solution(s) do you propose? If you don't advocate mass killoffs, then why not? Wouldn't that be more humane than letting some 8.5 billion people die off?
Granted, its pretty clear from what you've posted that you'd probably want to put obsese Americans in gas ovens (okay, maybe not gas ovens... maybe chain them to concrete blocks and drop them into a deep part of the ocean to minimize their contribution to global CO2), but even if you managed to kill all Americans (obese and otherwise), you will have only just scratched the surface - you're still going to face the same killoff of the rest of the world's population (albeit at a slightly later date), right?
How would you propose to solve these problems after your "final solution" (killing off all Americans)?
What are you doing to address the "real problem"?
There you go again with the insults. These people have said many things worthy of counterpoint. I am only left with the belief that you have no counterpoint. They cite time after time Scientists with credentials at least as impressive as yours who disagree, and you call them uninformed? Then you start painting all Republicans as being materialistic, consumeristic, and anti-scientific. Have you not heard of the Hollywood limosine liberals? Does it not bother you that they show up in their limo's to decry mans use of fossil fuels then they leave in their limo's? I guarantee you that these guys aint Republicans. They lost all credibility long ago, and if there is any value in what you preach, they have harmed it. You would do better by answering arguments instead of insulting without answer.
Remember when they first started telling us that the world was in trouble because they were cutting down the South American rain forests at the rate of a football field a minute? If that were true, South America should be a desert now with nothing left to cut. The half-wit, frightened by their own shadow left have harmed, not helped the planet by making the environmental message dubious.
A few tips for you:
Environmentalism is a good thing.
Not everyone who is Republican is a conservative.
Re-evaluate your stereotypes.
> Reminds me of Michael Dukakis in a tank.
Or George W. Bush on an aircraft carrier, "Mission Accomplished."
Posted by: David Mathews on March 30, 2007 08:50 AM> If you don't advocate mass killoffs, then why not?
This is a false choice:
Either obese Americans can keep on driving their SUVs and engaging in mindless consumerism or massive genocide against the impoverished people of the world.
To that I say: No, no, no. The impoverished people of the world have already suffered enough on our behalf. They have suffered enough.
It is time for Americans to begin making sacrifices. Americans will have no choice except to suffer.
> How would you propose to solve these problems after your "final solution" (killing off all Americans)?
I don't advocate killing Americans -- any Americans. The SUVs have to go extinct, though, and the consumer culture must die. Our wealth, prosperity & entitlements must evaporate away.
These sacrifices will serve to minimize suffering.
> Remember when they first started telling us that the world was in trouble because they were cutting down the South American rain forests at the rate of a football field a minute? If that were true, South America should be a desert now with nothing left to cut.
This is an uninformed question leading to an irrational conclusion.
Humans are destroying the Amazon rain forest at a horrendous pace. The entire forest is not destroyed (as of yet) because it covers an area equal to entire landmass of the continental United States. Given enough time, at the present rate of destruction, and the forest will be gone.
The transformation of the rain forest to a desert still remains a possibility. Humans are killing the Aamazon rain forest.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 30, 2007 09:01 AMWashington State that has shown its growth through the harvest of Douglas Fir trees. Our fathers generation made their livings on the forest and now the state harvests for money to run the government. Dave Mathews you are so full of shit. you are a real asshole!! Get out of here!You Bastard!! Posted by: HW on March 30, 2007 09:44 AM
I hear two threads from conservatives, one is that global warming is a hoax, more or less, and the other is that it's a pretext for a political power grab by the public sector against the private sector.
I like the second part better than the first.
What if it is happening? I first learned about the greenhouse effect from my chemistry teacher back in 1967, and he wasn't no liberal!
Assuming global warming, can conservatives come up with solutions to global warming that aren't "anti-progress", aren't achieved through government edict, and don't involve an overall increase in taxes? (There are plenty of such solutions, none of which is ever seriously considered)
Thanks for your time, NLC#1
Posted by: newleftconservative#1 on March 30, 2007 09:53 AMYeah sure, ask the sun to turn it's self down.
Some how the temp rise of .005 isn't much is it.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 30, 2007 10:07 AMEnvironment Canada is also reporting near-record low levels of ice coverage in East Coast waters this year.
______________________________________________
Cato read the whole damn thing... (NEAR RECORD)
Not the record..... Gezzz
So in words you maybe able to understand. It's been worse. The ice shelf does change.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 30, 2007 10:25 AMAre you saying that environmentalists have not said that about the rain forests?
Are you denying the existence of limosine liberals/environmentalists?
What is the irrational conclusion I made? In other words what did you think my conclusion was?
Whether or not you choose to have faith in what you don't understand or choose to believe what has been repeatedly proven, Anthropogenic induced Global Climate Change is real and happening. If we get synchronized traffic lights out of one flatlander's irony it will be a bigger benefit than the entirety of economic wolf crying or fixation on transitional objects put together. Climate Change research is far less of a scam than the subsidizing of the fossil fuels industries. Try defending the huge federal and local subsidies and the marshalling of armed forces for those industries and not sound like you are defending national government intervention into the economy at the same time (tenet of socialism and controlled economies). Maybe I can imagine a future where the US can justify invading sovereign nations for their windmills, the Dutch better watch it! There is no more communist propaganda, all viable communist bodies have been decapitated and disposed of, so the only thing to fear is... change.
Sciences are imperfect and are constantly undergoing evaluation, that's what peer review, challenge, and innovation are all about. It is not disputed that man modifies the environment and our current speed of modifying it is unprecedented and the effects on the planet are going to be larger and more dramatic than any generation that has preceded this one. Is it that partisan of me? Does it follow that conservatives don't believe that mass industrial activity often has a negative effect on ecosystems? Does it follow that conservatives don't believe scientific evidence unless it is suitable to a political strategy?
Sir your wasting your time. DM has already been warned about hogging a thread and just yacking away.
It's all he ever does.
OK, you first. Lead by example. Put your money where your mouth is. Start with your computer and your internet connection.
And you're one of the educated, I assume?
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 30, 2007 11:40 AM_________________________________________
Nice Stefan. He takes down another fool.
Bet that left a mark.
You may wish to put some ice on that. LOL
(bill clinton)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 30, 2007 11:46 AMHere's an irony of global warming. Psuedo-conservative George Bush has jumped on the biofuel bandwagon and is pursuing mandates and subsidies--He was just in Brazil hyping them.
Biofuels have been around since the turn of the century before last, but they could never make any headway in the free market because they are bogus-- they are way too innefficient, at least in the temperate zone. Now there's a pork-barrel bandwagon of government-driven-demand and the so-called conservative George Bush can't wait to be a cheerleader for it.
Meanwhile biofuels are a dead-end street as far as an actual solution to the actual problem. Burning coal with Carbon sequestration is probably extremely cheap, would barely affect prices and could be accomplished by very free-market friendly means, but you don't see these phoney conservatives like Bush getting excited about that.
Thanks for your time, NLC#1
You really should read this website more often.
NONE of us are say GW is a conservative.
This we all know, except for you!
Now let's look at the LIB's/Left who says we must have corn fuel, but don't you damn will drill anywhere.
You have any other dumb questions to ask.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 30, 2007 12:51 PM
/i This is a false choice:
Oh, so you're backing away from your earlier claims then that the earth can only sustain about 400 million humans then?
Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 30, 2007 01:01 PMHe can make an informed decision about AGW based on personal observations?
The real truth is he just likes to ride around in helicopters, make you pay for it and everything else too.
Posted by: Jack Burton on March 30, 2007 03:19 PMThis man Nickels is a disgrace.
A Global Warming fanatic taking an unneccesary helicopter ride burning fossil fuels to see things already reported to him.
Nickels is proof of how low the bar is in Seattle in terms of the public's expectations of Elected Officials. Political Correctness trumps effective policy-making & management. I cannot wait for the Seattle Depression continued tax increases will ultimately lead to.
Seattle will be screaming for straight-shooters who can more cost-effectively manage the city.
Posted by: dude on March 30, 2007 03:39 PMOh well, Think Globularly Act Locally...
Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 30, 2007 04:00 PMThere is no proof that anthropogenic induced Global Climate Change™ is "real and happening".
What about this simple statement don't you screwballs don't under stand? "C02 lags climate warming."
What about this simple statement don't you screwballs don't under stand? "The earth has been cooling and warming since the dawn of time independent of anything man does."
The absolute stupidity and stinking hubris of you people who think that man can somehow control the climate just astonishes me and about 2500 real climate associated scientists in the world.
You know what is real? Money. To the tune of multiple billions in research grants that die as soon as the politicos realize that Global Climate Change™ or Global Warming™ or whatever you morons are calling it now, is as natural as rain.
So here's a hot tip Mongo, why not read stuff that doesn't validate your world view so you can, kinda, you know, see two sides of an issue. You might actually learn something.
But that may be to much to ask.
#76 - #96
About 99% of what conservatives say about Global Warming is irrelevant and the final 1% is pure miscomprehension of the science involved.
The war against science continues here among the conservatives. This war will continue until 2009. After the 2009 elections the conservatives will be largely irrelevant.
> Oh, so you're backing away from your earlier claims then that the earth can only sustain about 400 million humans then?
After humankind gets done consuming the remaining resources of the Earth & polluting the entire globe & modifying the climate in a dangerous fashion ... humankind will be lucky if the Earth can support 400 million humans.
For that reason, I encourage us all to make sacrifices and learn to live lightly upon the land.
I do not promote genocide as a solution to any problem, ever. If the human population must crash, I much prefer for Nature to accomplish that task without any human intervention whatsoever.
I'll wait.
Posted by: NurseWilliam on March 31, 2007 04:33 AMYou ask and shall not receive.
Do you have any opinions (pro or con) regarding pollution?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 31, 2007 04:53 AMmaybe not--but it's currently the only time anyone in Seattle can legally & safely say 'normal' or 'abnormal!'
Nickels in a chopper reminds me of Fonda on that AA gun or Dukakis on the tank. same lib agenda.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 31, 2007 08:18 AMHow many billions in research have been spent over the last 200 years toward the industries and infrastructures that are at issue here? We are currently spending some 60 odd billion a year alone just to secure the oil flow in and out of the middle east. The money going towards efficient systems design and research, toward environmental research, toward climate research is a drop in the freakin bucket by comparison. Unless you can show me something different. Another bogus point you try and prop. It's a non-starter.
Hubris? R&D to conserve resources and prolong economies and health is Hubris? It's conservation at worst. There are far more than two side to this issue, and morons like yourself who obviously can't reason their way out of a box and parrot the readymade easy to dismantle as Ikea furniture arguments against progress can't seem to see that. The issue is not economy versus ecology, though dent-headed flatlanders like yourself would like to try and keep it that simple for your own peace of mind.
You are quite sporting with the name calling, I'm fine with that, eat up.
Posted by: Acid Brain on March 31, 2007 11:47 AMThe so-called educated community (admittedly a broadly-brushed term)has become better at espousing political agendas and willfully negligent as showing common sense. With that, they also become irrelevant.
Posted by: KS on March 31, 2007 01:40 PMDavey Gravy wrote: "You ask and shall not receive."
And that moron expects critically-thinking human beings to take him at his wird? Why has Stefan not zapped this loon a long time ago?
(/taking this mouth-breathing idiot seriously)
Posted by: NurseWilliam on April 1, 2007 04:18 AMThank you.
Posted by: NurseWilliam on April 1, 2007 04:19 AM